David Teenan
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic David Teenan
Posted 17 Sep 2014 22:58
This morning, both Stephanie’s mother and stepfather were cross examined by Simon Cridland.
Unfortunately for the L’il Crid, who did his best to make them out to be liars (unlike Optical Express of course), the estranged couple independently supported all of Stephanie’s claims.
L’il Crid’s well worn comment for the past three days has been: “That is not true, you are exaggerating!”.
I fear no-one, so I advise Simon to stay well clear of me at the end of this case as my arrest would simply be great publicity for my campaign!
Btw, I noticed Cridland's pate catching the light as he scuttled along the corridors during a recess today, so guessing he loves the excuse to wear a wig!
Stephanie called me this evening to tell me the Mail Online had published a story, asking me not to publish it on my sites because she and her mother were upset that the article described Stephanie's visual disabilities, portraying her as a helpless victim.
Stephanie genuinely does not seek publicity, and honestly thought that she could take OE to court, tell the truth - win or lose, and walk away unnoticed.
I explained that by going to court she had forfeited her right to anonymity, and our pride must take a fall if we are to expose this corrupt and negligent industry: that My Beautiful Eyes Campaign is fighting on behalf of tens of thousands of people damaged by Optical Express et al, and we cannot let them continue to silence us.
Stephanie appreciated what I said, and I must make it clear that she is far more sympathetic to the perpetrators of the destruction of her vision (for financial gain) than I am!
Yesterday she told me that she felt sorry for Dr Joanna McGraw, because she didn’t think Joanna had intended to destroy her vision.
Toady Stephanie told me she also felt sorry for Alison Lemarchel, the OE 'refractive technician' called as OE's witness, who sold the £2,900 surgery to Stephanie for an approximate paltry 2% commission, split with the optometrist!
I told Stephanie that she should not allow herself to feel any generosity of spirit towards Alison, who could not possibly claim to be unaware of the numbers of people damaged by OE after ELEVEN years in their employ.
Alison is the human equivalent of a Judas lamb - although a lamb can be forgiven as it's not intelligent enough to have a conscience! Having said that, Alison's badly permed hair was a bit woolly...
I asked Stephanie to consider how many people like herself Alison might have encouraged to undergo surgery during the eleven years of her employment with OE!
Alison left OE eighteen months ago and now works as a wholesale 'sales clerk’' for Cosco - and even Judge Bailey said she needed to get back to “selling coffee”. Although to be fair, I think he mistook her workplace for Costa coffee!
Wherever... safer for the world that Alison Lemarchel sell coffee than eye surgery!
In my opinion Alison - and everyone employed by OE in the sale and execution(!!) of eye surgery is as culpable as Joanna McGraw.
During the past two and a half years I have been contacted by numerous OE whistleblowers, many ex employees who all admit that they were aware of the problems but chose to ignore them in return for their pay packet!
As for Joanna, who has worked for Optical Express since leaving Optimax in 2006, just like her colleagues she left her ethics at the surgery door when she sold her soul to the devil - namely David Moulsdale.
Perhaps you need to sit in my chair for a week to appreciate the extent of the problems suffered by so many, caused by the same surgeons over and over again.
Like many of her colleagues, including David Teenan, Stefan Klopper, Andre Oberholster, Dimitris Kazakos, and Jan Venter (Joanna's fellow countryman recently returned to his ranch with a fat sack of cash) she has had a number of complaints made to the GMC by damaged patients.
Yet the GMC find excuse after excuse to dismiss these repeated complaints, allowing the same surgeons to continue damaging more innocent and trusting victims - all for £32.25 per eye!
I haven’t even begun to cover today’s events in court, and believe me, they were very eventful!
Apologies, but you'll have to wait for more details, but meanwhile, I will tell you that the Defence took a nosedive immediately after lunch, thanks to the 10 page document I persuaded Stephanie’s legal team to look at last night.
It totally supports Stephanie's claims and discredits OE. When Nick Yell produced this document L'il Crid went into apoplexy and looked fit to kill me, demanding to know where this confidential document had come from!
Arguing that it should not be admitted as evidence, he then said he needed to discuss with Optical Express to confirm its validity.
Don't worry Crid, I've got it covered, and more
Perhaps L'il Crid should have studied OERML more closely, and then he could have prepared himself by reading Ireland's Sunday Business Post three days ago.
Remember I mentioned that Joanna smiled at me yesterday? It was a momentary aberration, this afternoon she could have lasered me with her eyes!
This evening, instead of describing Mrs McGraw’s attire, I'm able to show you, because on my way to the train station Joanna failed to notice that I was walking behind both her and a very jubilant Alison Lemarchel.
As the two parted ways you can see Alison was skipping across the road with joy, presumably considering how to spend the generous expenses OE allegedly paid her, which more than made up for the discomfort she suffered on the witness stand lying to Stephanie's barrister, Nicholas Yell.
I have watched Simon Cridland do his utmost to discredit and belittle Stephanie on the witness stand, and her journey to court has been far from easy.
OE have played some dirty games, but spying through Stephanie's bathroom window must be an all time low even for them!
Stephanie told me that had she known how difficult it would be she would never have considered legal action. She has thanked me a number of times for my support in court, but I have told her it's unnecessary, because I speak for every single person like us when I tell her that it us who owe the thanks to Stephanie, for having had the strength and determination to go through with this unpleasant process.
Every time I hear the words "Optical Express" repeated by the barristers - and a real Judge, in a real court room, with so many people finally hearing the truth, it's like a wonderful dream and music to my ears
Oops - almost forgot: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759324...rss&ns_campaign=1490
Tick tock...
Unfortunately for the L’il Crid, who did his best to make them out to be liars (unlike Optical Express of course), the estranged couple independently supported all of Stephanie’s claims.
L’il Crid’s well worn comment for the past three days has been: “That is not true, you are exaggerating!”.
I fear no-one, so I advise Simon to stay well clear of me at the end of this case as my arrest would simply be great publicity for my campaign!
Btw, I noticed Cridland's pate catching the light as he scuttled along the corridors during a recess today, so guessing he loves the excuse to wear a wig!
Stephanie called me this evening to tell me the Mail Online had published a story, asking me not to publish it on my sites because she and her mother were upset that the article described Stephanie's visual disabilities, portraying her as a helpless victim.
Stephanie genuinely does not seek publicity, and honestly thought that she could take OE to court, tell the truth - win or lose, and walk away unnoticed.
I explained that by going to court she had forfeited her right to anonymity, and our pride must take a fall if we are to expose this corrupt and negligent industry: that My Beautiful Eyes Campaign is fighting on behalf of tens of thousands of people damaged by Optical Express et al, and we cannot let them continue to silence us.
Stephanie appreciated what I said, and I must make it clear that she is far more sympathetic to the perpetrators of the destruction of her vision (for financial gain) than I am!
Yesterday she told me that she felt sorry for Dr Joanna McGraw, because she didn’t think Joanna had intended to destroy her vision.
Toady Stephanie told me she also felt sorry for Alison Lemarchel, the OE 'refractive technician' called as OE's witness, who sold the £2,900 surgery to Stephanie for an approximate paltry 2% commission, split with the optometrist!
I told Stephanie that she should not allow herself to feel any generosity of spirit towards Alison, who could not possibly claim to be unaware of the numbers of people damaged by OE after ELEVEN years in their employ.
Alison is the human equivalent of a Judas lamb - although a lamb can be forgiven as it's not intelligent enough to have a conscience! Having said that, Alison's badly permed hair was a bit woolly...
I asked Stephanie to consider how many people like herself Alison might have encouraged to undergo surgery during the eleven years of her employment with OE!
Alison left OE eighteen months ago and now works as a wholesale 'sales clerk’' for Cosco - and even Judge Bailey said she needed to get back to “selling coffee”. Although to be fair, I think he mistook her workplace for Costa coffee!
Wherever... safer for the world that Alison Lemarchel sell coffee than eye surgery!
In my opinion Alison - and everyone employed by OE in the sale and execution(!!) of eye surgery is as culpable as Joanna McGraw.
During the past two and a half years I have been contacted by numerous OE whistleblowers, many ex employees who all admit that they were aware of the problems but chose to ignore them in return for their pay packet!
As for Joanna, who has worked for Optical Express since leaving Optimax in 2006, just like her colleagues she left her ethics at the surgery door when she sold her soul to the devil - namely David Moulsdale.
Perhaps you need to sit in my chair for a week to appreciate the extent of the problems suffered by so many, caused by the same surgeons over and over again.
Like many of her colleagues, including David Teenan, Stefan Klopper, Andre Oberholster, Dimitris Kazakos, and Jan Venter (Joanna's fellow countryman recently returned to his ranch with a fat sack of cash) she has had a number of complaints made to the GMC by damaged patients.
Yet the GMC find excuse after excuse to dismiss these repeated complaints, allowing the same surgeons to continue damaging more innocent and trusting victims - all for £32.25 per eye!
I haven’t even begun to cover today’s events in court, and believe me, they were very eventful!
Apologies, but you'll have to wait for more details, but meanwhile, I will tell you that the Defence took a nosedive immediately after lunch, thanks to the 10 page document I persuaded Stephanie’s legal team to look at last night.
It totally supports Stephanie's claims and discredits OE. When Nick Yell produced this document L'il Crid went into apoplexy and looked fit to kill me, demanding to know where this confidential document had come from!
Arguing that it should not be admitted as evidence, he then said he needed to discuss with Optical Express to confirm its validity.
Don't worry Crid, I've got it covered, and more
Perhaps L'il Crid should have studied OERML more closely, and then he could have prepared himself by reading Ireland's Sunday Business Post three days ago.
Remember I mentioned that Joanna smiled at me yesterday? It was a momentary aberration, this afternoon she could have lasered me with her eyes!
This evening, instead of describing Mrs McGraw’s attire, I'm able to show you, because on my way to the train station Joanna failed to notice that I was walking behind both her and a very jubilant Alison Lemarchel.
As the two parted ways you can see Alison was skipping across the road with joy, presumably considering how to spend the generous expenses OE allegedly paid her, which more than made up for the discomfort she suffered on the witness stand lying to Stephanie's barrister, Nicholas Yell.
I have watched Simon Cridland do his utmost to discredit and belittle Stephanie on the witness stand, and her journey to court has been far from easy.
OE have played some dirty games, but spying through Stephanie's bathroom window must be an all time low even for them!
Stephanie told me that had she known how difficult it would be she would never have considered legal action. She has thanked me a number of times for my support in court, but I have told her it's unnecessary, because I speak for every single person like us when I tell her that it us who owe the thanks to Stephanie, for having had the strength and determination to go through with this unpleasant process.
Every time I hear the words "Optical Express" repeated by the barristers - and a real Judge, in a real court room, with so many people finally hearing the truth, it's like a wonderful dream and music to my ears
Oops - almost forgot: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759324...rss&ns_campaign=1490
Tick tock...
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic David Teenan
Posted 16 Sep 2014 22:01
Stephanie was on the witness stand throughout the entire day, with an hour break for lunch.
Simon Cridland, barrister for the Defendants (Optical Express and Joanna McGraw), spent 5 hours cross examining Stephanie, desperately trying to discredit her, essentially calling her a liar, accusing her of exaggerating every claim she made about her poor vision.
He said the surveillance video showed her using a cash machine and mobile phone, so her eyes couldn’t be as bad as she said. I’m sure many of you, like me, guess the numbers and hope we’re right! I have often called the wrong person because I can’t read my phone, and pressed incorrect digits on cash machines etc…
He said she’d been videoed hoovering, so must be able to see the dust and dirt! (Actually, that’s one advantage of the state of my eyes - I can’t see the dust in my house, because I certainly haven’t got time to do anything about it if I could!)
Visually impaired is tragically what so many of us are, thanks to this hideous surgery, and hearing a pompous little man in a wig telling Stephanie that she’s exaggerating the state of her eyes made me want to rip out his throat - verbally of course!
However, I shouldn’t really be angry with him, as Cridland is simply doing what he’s paid lots of money to do, believing the lies OE have told him - otherwise he would be breaking all sorts of laws if he were to represent a client knowing they were lying!
t was quite traumatic hearing Stephanie's description of her treatment, starting with her 'consultation', as it mirrored my own, and no doubt that of every other person whose eyes have been damaged by Optical Express et al.
I shed a few tears again toward the end of the day, which is something I can usually avoid by immersing myself in MBE activities. Thinking too much about the mess of my own eyes pulls me back to a place I don’t want to be!
It took a lot of self control to remain quiet when Cridland told Stephanie: “Corneal haze is insignificant and you’d still have gone ahead if you’d been told about it…”.
He expressed disbelief that anyone would undergo elective eye surgery without researching the risks fully. Stephanie replied that she had expected Joanna to personally explain it to her before the op.
Cridland said Joanna McGraw had fully explained and discussed the risks of treatment, that she’d told Stephanie surgery might cause bulging corneas (ectasia), that she might suffer regression, dry eyes, need further surgery, glasses, etc…
It was hard for me not to burst out laughing at the absurdity of his claim - that any surgeon at OE (et al) has time to spend with a patient before the operation to explain the risks.
Absurd because, as she replied, had Stephanie been told any of this she would have walked out immediately, as we all would have done if we'd been told the truth before surgery - FULLY INFORMED CONSENT!
At the end of the day, after the judge retired, I approached Cridland and suggested he visit Optical Express anonymously, and then see what he has to say about their sales process and “informed consent”! I don’t think he likes me very much, whereas even Joanna smiled at me today. Gosh!
Because I’m too tired to be more creative: Dr McGraw wore a fitted purple blue jacket with a grey shot silk pencil skirt and low heeled black suede court shoes. Her trademark scarf around her throat was midnight blue with pink and turquoise splodges.
Stephanie and I wore dark glasses.
Simon Cridland, barrister for the Defendants (Optical Express and Joanna McGraw), spent 5 hours cross examining Stephanie, desperately trying to discredit her, essentially calling her a liar, accusing her of exaggerating every claim she made about her poor vision.
He said the surveillance video showed her using a cash machine and mobile phone, so her eyes couldn’t be as bad as she said. I’m sure many of you, like me, guess the numbers and hope we’re right! I have often called the wrong person because I can’t read my phone, and pressed incorrect digits on cash machines etc…
He said she’d been videoed hoovering, so must be able to see the dust and dirt! (Actually, that’s one advantage of the state of my eyes - I can’t see the dust in my house, because I certainly haven’t got time to do anything about it if I could!)
Visually impaired is tragically what so many of us are, thanks to this hideous surgery, and hearing a pompous little man in a wig telling Stephanie that she’s exaggerating the state of her eyes made me want to rip out his throat - verbally of course!
However, I shouldn’t really be angry with him, as Cridland is simply doing what he’s paid lots of money to do, believing the lies OE have told him - otherwise he would be breaking all sorts of laws if he were to represent a client knowing they were lying!
t was quite traumatic hearing Stephanie's description of her treatment, starting with her 'consultation', as it mirrored my own, and no doubt that of every other person whose eyes have been damaged by Optical Express et al.
I shed a few tears again toward the end of the day, which is something I can usually avoid by immersing myself in MBE activities. Thinking too much about the mess of my own eyes pulls me back to a place I don’t want to be!
It took a lot of self control to remain quiet when Cridland told Stephanie: “Corneal haze is insignificant and you’d still have gone ahead if you’d been told about it…”.
He expressed disbelief that anyone would undergo elective eye surgery without researching the risks fully. Stephanie replied that she had expected Joanna to personally explain it to her before the op.
Cridland said Joanna McGraw had fully explained and discussed the risks of treatment, that she’d told Stephanie surgery might cause bulging corneas (ectasia), that she might suffer regression, dry eyes, need further surgery, glasses, etc…
It was hard for me not to burst out laughing at the absurdity of his claim - that any surgeon at OE (et al) has time to spend with a patient before the operation to explain the risks.
Absurd because, as she replied, had Stephanie been told any of this she would have walked out immediately, as we all would have done if we'd been told the truth before surgery - FULLY INFORMED CONSENT!
At the end of the day, after the judge retired, I approached Cridland and suggested he visit Optical Express anonymously, and then see what he has to say about their sales process and “informed consent”! I don’t think he likes me very much, whereas even Joanna smiled at me today. Gosh!
Because I’m too tired to be more creative: Dr McGraw wore a fitted purple blue jacket with a grey shot silk pencil skirt and low heeled black suede court shoes. Her trademark scarf around her throat was midnight blue with pink and turquoise splodges.
Stephanie and I wore dark glasses.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic David Teenan
Posted 15 Sep 2014 20:42
Today was the first day of 28 year old Stephanie’s legal claim against Optical Express (1st defendant) and Dr Joanna McGraw (2nd Defendant).
I truly expected the Defendants to settle at the last moment - as they generally do! But no, it seems they’re going ahead, and I’m free to report here now it’s in open court.
OE discovered last week that I knew about the trial, so presumably weren’t surprised at my presence. Nevertheless, Mrs McGraw and her legal team didn’t seem very happy to see me. And yet I’m such fun to have around
Dressed in a smart navy skirt and jacket with a modest neckline, lightened up by a light blue patterned scarf around her throat, Joanna remained composed throughout as Stephanie’s barrister presented his argument.
In fact, Joanna could have had botox given the lack of emotion she showed, her pallor accentuated by rouge, providing an unfortunate resemblance to a cadaver made up for a family viewing.
Stephanie’s case is based on lack of informed consent, Dr McGraw’s failure to explain and warn her of the risks pre surgery, performed at Optical Express in Southampton when she was only twenty one years old.
Briefly: Stephanie was supposed to have Lasik, Joanna changed it to Lasek, but performed PRK without consent.
I found myself in tears at one point, empathising with the description of Stephanie’s problems, many similar to my own - including severe photophobia. (It is a very bright court room and Stephanie and I both wore dark glasses)
Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Stephen Hannan and David Mungall) were mentioned in the opening argument, and I don’t believe OE could function without the tag team to fend off so many damaged patients with their repeated lies! (Presumably both have signed a gagging order with OE)
David Mungall wrote to Stephanie before she began legal proceedings in 2010, asking how much she wanted to settle. £10,000 was discussed.
Other than Joanna McGraw, there can be no argument that I had more knowledge about this industry than anyone else present there today. And I now better understand the difficulties faced by legal teams in representing eye surgery negligence clients.
It’s taken me nearly four years to learn all I have about the various procedures, terminology, etc... and to expect a Court to learn it in a day - or even a month, is impossible!
I was so shocked when her barrister detailed how the psychiatrist employed by OE to examine Stephanie had claimed she was exaggerating her depression for the purpose of her legal claim!
Believe me it gets worse
In 2012 Optical Express employed a surveillance team to spy on Stephanie, trying to prove she was lying about the extent of her vision problems. They even filmed her inside her house in her kitchen - and in her bathroom!!
Never again should anyone question me when I advise they record meetings with OE surgeons!
The Court emptied at 3pm so Judge Bailey could watch 2hrs of edited footage on a laptop, as the video player wasn't available in the Court.
Lucky, methought!
By the way, I’m told Stephanie was wearing sunglasses when they filmed her through her kitchen window!
The informed consent process is at the heart of My Beautiful Eyes Campaign calling for government legislation. If (when) this case is won, it will be fantastically helpful to so many people who are in, or considering, litigation.
If you’re in London, or close by, and would like to come along to support Stephanie, please contact me.
I intend to be present every day, so will have little time to respond to emails, queries, etc…
I will do my best to update OERML when I can, but in the meantime, please visit OERML Facebook for recent news.
I truly expected the Defendants to settle at the last moment - as they generally do! But no, it seems they’re going ahead, and I’m free to report here now it’s in open court.
OE discovered last week that I knew about the trial, so presumably weren’t surprised at my presence. Nevertheless, Mrs McGraw and her legal team didn’t seem very happy to see me. And yet I’m such fun to have around
Dressed in a smart navy skirt and jacket with a modest neckline, lightened up by a light blue patterned scarf around her throat, Joanna remained composed throughout as Stephanie’s barrister presented his argument.
In fact, Joanna could have had botox given the lack of emotion she showed, her pallor accentuated by rouge, providing an unfortunate resemblance to a cadaver made up for a family viewing.
Stephanie’s case is based on lack of informed consent, Dr McGraw’s failure to explain and warn her of the risks pre surgery, performed at Optical Express in Southampton when she was only twenty one years old.
Briefly: Stephanie was supposed to have Lasik, Joanna changed it to Lasek, but performed PRK without consent.
I found myself in tears at one point, empathising with the description of Stephanie’s problems, many similar to my own - including severe photophobia. (It is a very bright court room and Stephanie and I both wore dark glasses)
Tweedledum and Tweedledee (Stephen Hannan and David Mungall) were mentioned in the opening argument, and I don’t believe OE could function without the tag team to fend off so many damaged patients with their repeated lies! (Presumably both have signed a gagging order with OE)
David Mungall wrote to Stephanie before she began legal proceedings in 2010, asking how much she wanted to settle. £10,000 was discussed.
Other than Joanna McGraw, there can be no argument that I had more knowledge about this industry than anyone else present there today. And I now better understand the difficulties faced by legal teams in representing eye surgery negligence clients.
It’s taken me nearly four years to learn all I have about the various procedures, terminology, etc... and to expect a Court to learn it in a day - or even a month, is impossible!
I was so shocked when her barrister detailed how the psychiatrist employed by OE to examine Stephanie had claimed she was exaggerating her depression for the purpose of her legal claim!
Believe me it gets worse
In 2012 Optical Express employed a surveillance team to spy on Stephanie, trying to prove she was lying about the extent of her vision problems. They even filmed her inside her house in her kitchen - and in her bathroom!!
Never again should anyone question me when I advise they record meetings with OE surgeons!
The Court emptied at 3pm so Judge Bailey could watch 2hrs of edited footage on a laptop, as the video player wasn't available in the Court.
Lucky, methought!
By the way, I’m told Stephanie was wearing sunglasses when they filmed her through her kitchen window!
The informed consent process is at the heart of My Beautiful Eyes Campaign calling for government legislation. If (when) this case is won, it will be fantastically helpful to so many people who are in, or considering, litigation.
If you’re in London, or close by, and would like to come along to support Stephanie, please contact me.
I intend to be present every day, so will have little time to respond to emails, queries, etc…
I will do my best to update OERML when I can, but in the meantime, please visit OERML Facebook for recent news.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1160
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic David Teenan
Posted 13 Sep 2014 10:29
If Mrs Joanna McGraw was your operating surgeon - at ANY clinic, and you suffered post op problems of any kind, please contact me asap: admin@opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk
Moderators: admin